It's really sad that Apple simply doesn't want to compete in the marketplace. The thing is, I've used both the iPad and the Galaxy Tab, and the iPad is nicer. The Galaxy Tab is definitely the best Android tablet I've seen so far, but Apple has the ability to compete and win in the marketplace. So why is it going ballistic all over the world about the Galaxy? While it may be causing some pain for Samsung now, all it's really doing is screaming out to the world: "hey, if you want a more open tablet that we think is as good, if not better than, the iPad, check out what Samsung is working on!" In the past, Apple mostly let its own products stand on their own, and they clearly dominated in the marketplace. The fact that Apple is switching from that stance to aggressive litigation should be a warning sign for Apple's future.

from the what-are-they-missing dept

Honestly, I'm at a loss to explain Apple's patent lawsuits against Samsung, which seem mainly targeted at the company's Galaxy Tab 10.1 product, which competes directly with the iPad. Having spent time with both devices, I can say that they're certainly competitive. The hardware is pretty similar, but Apple's software is still miles ahead on the tablet form-factor, though I'm sure Android will at least start to get better now that more tablets are on the market. But, really, all Apple has done with this lawsuit is to signal to the world (loudly) that hey, we're really freaking scared that Samsung has built a better product than we have.

The latest in the worldwide legal fight is that Apple has convinced Australia to block the sale of the device in that country, while it reviews some of Apple's more ridiculous patent claims -- such as for "slide to unlock," "pinch-to-zoom," and... for the "edge bounce" feature that happens when you hit the "bottom" or "top" of a document. Seriously, Apple? Get over it. People copy design elements all the time. Apple has done it as well. And the end result is everyone works hard to make a great new product. Going after Samsung for making a quality competitor just looks petty. Go compete in the marketplace.

from the good-luck-with-that dept

DannyB points us to the news that apparently the folks at the NY Post are still figuring out how this web thing works. As there's been a lot more attention paid to things like apps, they put together a fee-based NY Post app. I have no idea if it's any good, but somewhere along the line, it appears that someone at the Post realized that people could bypass the app by simply visiting the NYPost website via the browser on the iPad. Rather than think that perhaps they should focus on making the app more valuable and worth paying for, the geniuses went a different direction and decided to block access to anyone arriving at the NYPost.com domain via a Safari browser on an iOS device. Will this make people buy the app? Probably not. It might encourage them to go to competing sites, however. Even more ridiculous is that apparently no one at the Post realized that there are other browsers: you can still get to the site via alternatives like Opera and Skyfire.

from the true-price-of-early-adoption dept

A 17-year-old student in Anhui Province sold one of his kidneys for 20,000 yuan only to buy an iPad 2. Now, with his health getting worse, the boy is feeling regret but it is too late, the Global Times reported today.

Now, while most of us have desired the latest shiny new thing, few of us have had the courage to put one of our organs on the line for it. Maybe it's just the reasonable fear of unlicensed surgical procedures holding us back or the threat of being prosecuted for illegally harvesting our own organs. Either way, the bar has been raised and no longer will onlookers be impressed by our tales of camping outside the Apple store for 36 hours for a shot at the latest iWhatever.

While this student regrets his decision to go through life with a half-rack of kidneys, he's already built some wiggle room into his story:

"I wanted to buy an iPad 2 but could not afford it," said the boy surnamed Zheng in Huaishan City. "A broker contacted me on the Internet and said he could help me sell one kidney for 20,000 yuan."

A broker contacted him? Unless by "contacted him," he means "clicked on a Google ad for 'SELL YOUR KIDNEY NOW,'" I'm pretty sure the kidney seller made the first contact. I could be wrong. (The possibility is high. See also: this post.) Of course, this could mean he said something irresponsible like, "I'd sell a kidney to get one of those," in the wrong forum at the wrong time and someone "reached out." You never know.

Unfortunately for this student (whose lifetime stats currently read: iPad[s]: 1; Kidney[s]: -1) there may be little recourse available. The hospital where the removal was performed (Chenzhou No. 198) is "not qualified to perform organ transplants," meaning that even if said kidney is found, he'll need to talk another hospital into re-inserting Kidney A. The broker has also vanished, covering his tracks by turning his phone off. (That's not a punchline. It's right there in the article.)

When he returned home, his mother found out and reported to the police immediately. But they could not locate the broker whose cell phone was always powered off, the report said.

Well, I hope we can all take something from this experience and apply it to our own lives. For me, it's "temper your desires." Or, if you can't, at least perform the kidney-iPad exchange here in the US, where the court systems and ambulance chasers will be more than happy to help you argue that this is Apple's fault.

iPad, iPhone and the iPhone Gift Card may not be used in third-party promotions.

iPod touch is only allowed to be used in special circumstances and requires a minimum purchase of 250 units.

You may NOT use the Myriad Set font on or in connection with web sites, products, packaging, manuals, or promotional/advertising materials.

The use of "free" as a modifier in any Apple product reference in a prominent manner (headlines, call- outs, etc.) is prohibited.

You must submit all marketing materials related to the promotion of Apple products to Apple for review.

That all sounds lovingly dictatorial on the part of Apple, but I'm left scratching my head how the company thinks these guidelines are even remotely enforceable. If someone has legitimately bought one of these devices, I can't see under what legal basis Apple can claim that a giveaway promotion violates the law. Perhaps there's a weak trademark claim, but I can't see it holding up in most cases (there could be a few exceptions). But, really, what is Apple thinking here? People use its products in giveaways and contests because the product is desirable . Why fight that?

from the reality-distortion dept

Apple and Steve Jobs are semi-famous for the "reality distortion field" that sometimes comes with Apple product announcements. But can it do the same when it screws up. It took a week after the kerfuffle last week concerning iPhones and iPads storing your location for Apple to finally respond, and the full response is an amusing study in corporate doublespeak.

As far as I can tell, Apple's key points are:

Apple (not researchers, or tons of other people who have noted this "bug" for a year or so) "discovered" a bug with location data on the phone:

The reason the iPhone stores so much data is a bug we uncovered and plan to fix shortly

There's no tracking going on. There's nothing to see here.

Apple is not tracking the location of your iPhone. Apple has never done so and has no plans to ever do so.

Even though there's no tracking and nothing to see here, it's still a bug which will be fixed.

The reason people are concerned about this is because people are confused.

Got that? People are confused and there's nothing to see here, but Apple has discovered a minor bug which will be fixed.

from the a-step-up dept

Tons of artists now release stems of their music for fans to remix. It's pretty common to see "remix" contests as well. Still, it's pretty interesting to see how some bands are taking it even further. Eliot Van Buskirk alerts us to the news that Damon Albarn's "virtual band" project, The Gorillaz, have teamed up with Korg to offer a special KORG iElectribe Gorillaz Edition for the iPad. The regular iElectribe is just an iPad synthesizer, which people seem to like. But the Gorillaz edition has a different (more fun, more Gorillaz-style) user interface design (making it look like it's been around the block and run over by a truck or two along the way), along with a ton of presets using music from The Gorillaz' latest album. So, instead of just giving people stems and telling them to remix, this is almost like an album bundled with its own synth tool in one package. I expect we'll start seeing things a lot more advanced than this. Why release just a plain old album when you can start to enable your fans to do much more with your music?

from the big-apple dept

Just a few weeks ago, we posted about a German politician, who was able to access all of his location data from his mobile phone service provider and allowed a German newspaper to create an interactive map displaying where he was at all times (and combining it with other public info). It seemed pretty creepy. Now, if you have an iPhone or an iPad, it turns out that you can do the exact same thing for yourself. As a bunch of folks are pointing out, some folks, digging through some information on Apple's devices, have discovered that it's been recording your location for the past 10 months, and they've created an (open source) program to let you easily create a map of your own whereabouts. That's even more creepy (especially for those who own such a device). It's not clear why Apple's devices were storing this data or if anything was being done with it, but it does seem a bit unnerving.

from the sorta,-almost-worked dept

We recently wrote about an interesting experiment with a "pay what you want" business model for an iPad stylus. While I tend not to be a fan of "pay what you want" for tangible goods (since there's a significant marginal cost), the two designers behind the device decided to combine it with Kickstarter's "threshold" setup. Basically, they asked people to pay what they wanted for the stylus, but also only left open 3,000 spots, and said they needed $50,000. Well, the 3,000 slots went quickly -- in just about a day. But the funding didn't quite reach the necessary level. Instead, it came out at just around $45,000.

While this is just a single data point, it probably isn't that surprising from a psychological standpoint. I would imagine many people went through the thought process of realizing that they could try any price, but if they went too low... it might not get made at all. So, for people who want to be cheap, perhaps the "logical" price point is just a bit below the necessary average, hoping that some others will overpay and subsidize you. And that's what happened. As some in our comments noted, perhaps a much more interesting (and possibly better) model would be if there were a way to take the 3,000 highest bidders. In that scenario, if you bid too low, you wouldn't get the stylus at all... but others who bid slightly more would. I'd be fascinated to see how something like that worked out.

Either way, with a few weeks left, and the ability to change bids, many expected that enough people would change their bids to hit the necessary threshold. However, rather than wait for that, the designers just added some new fixed-price tiers, that priced the item at the $25 they plan to officially market it at, and a whole bunch of people have paid up, so the overall project did end up going well past the threshold. Definitely an interesting business model experiment, which, once again, highlights one of the risks with a pure "pay what you want" model especially with tangible goods. It can work, but there are pressures to keep in mind.

from the neat-to-see dept

While we're not huge fans of pure "pay what you want" business models, which often feel more like give it away and pray models rather than complete business model concepts, I do think it can be part of a larger business model when done creatively. Of course, for the most part, I had considered pay what you want not to make much sense outside of the realm of digital goods. While some restaurants have found that it can work to do a pay what you want model, it seems a lot riskier, since the marginal cost is pretty high, and you can easily lose out. That's different in the case of a digital work, where the marginal cost is zero. So, for the most part, I haven't thought too much of doing "pay what you want" for tangible goods.

However, perhaps it can work, if it's done in combination with a minimum funding goal, using the Kickstarter type model (where people pledge, but no one has to pay until a certain total is reached). Some designers who wanted to create a better stylus for the iPad are running just such an experiment on Kickstarter. They've designed a prototype and need about $50,000 to manufacture the first batch, but they're setting up a "pay what you want" system... while making it clear that they'll only produce the product if they can make that entire $50,000... and they only have 3,000 slots open. You can pay as little as a dollar, and you'll still get the stylus (which they plan to sell for $25 eventually)... but only if the other 2,999 buyers pony up enough to get them to $50,000.

Now, I can already hear the complaints, where some will point out that the "suckers" who "overpay" are subsidizing the "freeloaders" who only pay $1. And, if you're not up on basic economics, perhaps that makes sense. But the fact is that everyone in the group is paying what they feel is appropriate to get this product to market in the first place. That some may end up subsidizing others is really meaningless, if they feel what they're paying is worthwhile. As for the other argument that the freeloaders will take over, and thus the product won't get to market at all... well, that's what we're going to see, which is what makes this an interesting experiment.

I think part of the problem is that too many people are concerned about the relative issues, in terms of how much others are paying. But, that's mostly meaningless from an economics standpoint. The real question is what is it worth for you to pay to help get this product to market, and plenty of people are perfectly happy to pay a larger amount, knowing that it (a) helps these developers, (b) will make sure the product exists at all and (c) also gets them one of these styli faster than anyone else. And, to them, that's worth it... even if some others get it cheaper.